Collectively, the four agricultural experts who recently spoke to Boulder County's Cropland Policy Advisory Group have three PhDs and about 130 years of experience working with farmers.

But despite their long individual histories -- as researchers, crop consultants or policy advisers -- and their personal familiarities with agricultural research, the four experts did not agree on the pros and cons of growing genetically engineered crops.

In fact, they gave opposing recommendations for whether Boulder County should allow genetically modified crops to be grown on open space land.

This division among scientists, and the literature they publish, has ultimately made a resolution to the public debate over whether genetically modified organisms have any place on county-owned land more difficult. GMO proponents and opponents have come to public meetings in droves, each referencing studies to make their points.

Advertisement

"I think that there are many different scientific conclusions that you find in the literature," said Ron Stewart, director of Parks and Open Space. "The science isn't of one voice. Nor is the community."

'Confusing and fascinating'

Genetically modified corn has been allowed on open space land since 2003. But public opposition to GMOs began boiling over in 2009 after six farmers who lease land from the county asked the open space department for permission to plant sugar beet seeds that had been genetically modified to resist the herbicide Roundup.

After a summer full of heated debates, the county commissioners opted in August 2009 to delay making a decision about sugar beets until the open space department could create a unified plan for sustainably managing the county's 18,000 acres of cropland. The idea was to create a framework for evaluating the pros and cons of GMO crops -- and to give everyone more time to study the issue.

"The entire process of looking at GMO crops -- which led us to this broader look at what does it really mean to have sustainable agriculture -- it has been one of the most confusing and fascinating topics that I have looked at," said Commissioner Will Toor. "The issues were so much more complicated than I anticipated, and there are a lot of really interesting and difficult tradeoffs."

In the two years since the commissioners pressed the pause button on the public debate, open space staffers have been working behind the scenes to begin crafting a cropland policy. The process has included a concerted education effort. The open space department offered public tours of the county's agricultural properties, hosted a sustainable agricultural forum and set up a farm and ranch panel discussion.

The department also hired a consultant, Natural Capitalism Solutions, to do a review of the available literature relating to sustainable agriculture to try to clarify what the research actually shows. The result of the six-month effort is a 200-page report that cites hundreds of studies. The report mulls over how agricultural practices relate to climate, energy, water use and soil health, among other factors, but what it doesn't do is show that one method of farming is definitively better than another in all situations and locations.

"What we found is that sustainable agriculture is a pretty complex topic and there are a lot of factors that go into it," said Nick Sterling, research director at Natural Capitalism Solutions. "If you look at sustainability with that economic, social and environmental lens -- there are going to be tradeoffs among those. ... As much as we could, we tried to show where those tradeoffs occur."

Experts divided

The real work on drafting a cropland policy began more than six months ago when the Cropland Policy Advisory Group began meeting. The nine members of the group -- who are all volunteers -- were chosen by the county commissioners for the post. Three are conventional farmers, two are organic farmers, one works for an organic dairy and the other three are at-large members. And while the makeup of the group has drawn some criticism from GMO opponents for being unbalanced, Commissioner Ben Pearlman said the appointments were chosen to represent a range of perspectives.

"We wanted a broad spectrum," he said. "We wanted this to be a learning experience for everyone and we wanted for people to really dig in and try to think about what makes sense for the future of farming in this county."

The Cropland Policy Advisory Group has already studied a wide variety of issues important to farming -- from water use to herbicides to fertilizers -- but in the last two weeks, it's taken up the GMO debate.

For its first meeting on the topic, held on Aug. 10, the open space department invited three experts to answer group members' questions. Two of the guests -- Phil Westra, a researcher at Colorado State University, and Kent Davis, a local crop consultant -- supported planting genetically modified crops. The third expert, Michael McNeill, a crop consultant and researcher based in Iowa, said he had concerns about some of the side effects of planting GMO crops.

After hearing concerns from the public that the panel of experts was unbalanced, the open space department invited Charles Benbrook, chief scientist at The Organic Center, to answer questions at Wednesday's meeting.

And while the four experts did not agree on what the policy should be on open space land, they seemed to agree with the concept that the cropping system a farmer uses represents tradeoffs.

"You have to acknowledge that there's strengths and weaknesses to both systems," said Westra, addressing organic farming and planting GMO crops. Westra also clearly stated that he believes GMOs should be allowed on county land.

McNeill spent a lot of time discussing problems that are showing up in Iowa related to the overuse of glyphosate -- the main ingredient in Roundup -- in fields planted with Roundup-resistant crops. But McNeill said he was not totally against GMOs.

"I think that GMO may have its place," he said. "But in a lot of ways -- the way we're currently using it -- there certainly are a lot of negatives. I'm concerned about those negatives."

Benbrook made it clear that he thinks herbicide-resistant crops should not be allowed on open space land. He said he has concerns about GMOs -- including that the overuse of glyphosate would lead to more herbicide-resistant weeds -- but he argued that one of the most important reasons for banning GMOs is political.

"How Boulder County deals with the planting of genetically engineered crops on their public lands will send a message of some significance to other municipalities around the country that are struggling with the same issues," he said. "What happens in Boulder will be regarded as a bellwether, given that Boulder is really the epicenter of the organic food industry in the U.S."

Last week, the members of the Cropland Policy Advisory Group discussed what they think the county's GMO policy should look like, though they won't finalize their recommendations until October. Seven of the nine members appeared to support the continued planting of genetically engineered crops, at least in the short term.

The group's recommendations will be reviewed by the Parks and Open Space Advisory Committee and the Food and Agricultural Policy Council before the county commissioners make a final decision, probably next year.

The Boulder alt-country band gives its EPs names such as Death and Resurrection, and its songs bear the mark of hard truths and sin. But the punk energy behind the playing, and the sense that it's all in good fun, make it OK to dance to a song like "Death." Full Story